Michael Fitzmaurice presses regulator on suspected peat sites

Thanks for coming in. Quickfire questions, and I just want them answered because we have only five minutes. The planning regulator you said is looking into it, was it you that asked them to do that? Quick, because I have only five minutes. The office of the planning regulator. Was it you that asked them to look at this about the local authorities, yes or no? They did that of their own volition, but we did talk to the office and we did share all of our information. Europe taking a case, was it you that asked Europe, did you give information to Europe about it? About which? About the case they're taking now in DCJ. The European Commission deal with the department and the department provide the commission with information. And we have supported the department in terms of providing them with the regulatory information that we have in our possession. Right, question for you, the last group that were in here said between 10 and 30 hectares there was supposed to be a consent, if it's screened out. And they have one of those in for two years, is that correct? You said already that they needed planning between 10 and 30. If it screens out, do you need planning? And tell me, is there any site over 50 hectares at the moment? Other than Bòrd na Mhônas. Is there any site in Ireland over 50 hectares at the moment? There are five, possibly six sites of enforcement interest. I asked a question, is there sites over 50 hectares working at the moment, other than Bòrd na Mhônas, yes or no? Well, you're very familiar, Deputy, with this whole area. I'm only asking a straight question, yes or no? Well, in fact, it's quite a complicated answer to that question. No, it's not. As you would have read the Court of Appeal judgment in the heartbeat in determining... Is there sites over 50 hectares, yes or no? There are sites that we suspect are operating over 50 hectares, yes. So you suspect it, but you don't know. We are a regulatory authority, and we carry out investigations. We know that. Why was there in your investigation, I looked into Longford, because as well as they're doing it, I looked into Longford, that four of the sites were closed long before you'd done your investigation, and four of the sites weren't producing any peat, which you stated with George Leed that they were. Why? There are now five sites of interest in Longford. I asked about four sites that's closed before you ever came near the investigation. Two of them are actually Bòrd na Mhônas. I know the sites. One of them you lost a case on. It was 27.6 hectares. It was stated here today. Why is that? Because as well as I getting a person to do it, the guys over there got a person to do it. Why is that? Why did you give out that information that wasn't accurate on a report on RT? There are five sites still of enforcement interest in the Longford area. I asked a question about the sites. Because they are of enforcement interest, Deputy. Yeah. Why was there six more in Westmeath that weren't accurate? Any of the sites in our report are based on our investigations and the intelligence that we have received. It is up to the local authorities in those areas to investigate them and rule them in or out as to whether they are currently active or whether there are any issues arising out of past activities as well. What can a local authority do? You might answer this one for me. What can a local authority do if someone has put in for the Part 5 that has screened it out and tell me if I'm wrong on the Part 5 now, because they stated it earlier, up to 30 hectares and it's gone to onboard Penola. What can the local authority do with that case? Well, they'll have to look at their powers. No, no, no. What can they do if it's gone to ABP that they say we haven't the wherewithal to look after this? Under a Part 5 now, I'm saying. I can't answer for the local authorities. But you're like, who's over it all? Are you over the local authorities or how does it work? We have a supervisory role in terms of their environmental enforcement and we have identified for all of the local authorities. So just to be clear, you've stated on your report that people were illegal, that they're acting outside the law, even though there's an environmental damage. We know what Bournemouth had 80,000 hectares. We know what they have done. We know around the country where they are. You've stated this. While at the same time, how can you call someone acting that way? If they have put in a Part 5, if they've sent it to the local authority, in fairness to the local authority, they can do nothing about it. They've sent it on for expertise in ABP. And the person is two years waiting. And you call them illegal, acting outside the law, and you have a European court case coming. Is that in the interest of people working in this country? Extracting peat without authorization is illegal, Deputy. If they have put in a Part 5, screened it out, and no answer in two years. Do you think that's the right way of doing things? That's not for me to comment on. But it's all right to say you'll bring everyone to court. I read your documents there, and I think it's the most biased document ever came in here. I think it's a shame that we're blocking people. For more UN videos visit www.un.org